(This is the fourth post in a series examining the thoughts of Deep Church by Jim Belcher. Jim has written this book in an effort to offer a Third Way beyond the Emerging and Traditional Churches and the increasing divide between the two)
The most frequent charge I hear against the emerging church, leveled especially at its most well known leaders, is that their theology has become un-Biblical because of their view of the atonement. Specifically, there is a charge that emergents have rejected or downplayed the significance of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement.
In brief, this theory states that Jesus’ work on the cross was willingly and intentionally Jesus exchanging his life as a payment for our sins. This substitution allows us then to enter into right relationship with God through a payment we could not have made on our own. Jesus suffered and was punished on our behalf, a punishment that was necessary based on our sinfulness.
In Deep Church Belcher delves into his own struggles with the traditional churches handling of the gospel, his struggles with emergent theology of atonement, and tries to find balance between the two. His charge, that many have made of the traditional church over the past hundred years is that salvation has become far too individualized. We talk about Jesus’ death on the cross as if it was simply a way to get us to heaven. We believe, we are saved, and we are saved from hell end of the story. But the primary focus of Jesus’ teaching was on the Kingdom of God and how Jesus came to offer hope for a better life right now. This is a hope that carries us into a glorious future when he returns, but his death on the cross wasn’t to give us fire insurance.
Reacting to this reduction of the gospel, that stripped out much of the theology of the kingdom of God from the traditional church, emergents and plenty of traditionalists alike have worked to bring kingdom theology back into the Gospel. The charge against the emerging church, however, has been that they have gone the way of liberalism and grabbed a social gospel that doesn’t need the cross and abandons Christ’s work on the cross. Is this a fair charge?
Belcher thinks it is an unfair charge that is leveled at emergents especially Brian McLaren. McLaren fully embraces the need for personal salvation through the blood of Jesus. But Belcher believes that some of the theology coming out of the emerging church has lost the importance of substitutionary theories of atonement. He contends that it is in fact Christ’s work to pay for our sin that allows him to usher in the Kingdom of God and to subdue the powers of evil at work in this world. Kingdom theology stresses Christ’s dominion over this world and his work to redeem and subdue evil, but without the justification that comes through his work on the cross this is not possible.
Of all the sections of the book, this is perhaps the most interesting aspect of Belcher’s work. In his search for a third way, a path of unity for emergents and traditionalists, he is working to demonstrate how a life of true kingdom living is most appropriately based in a belief in the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross. He contends that traditionalists have often erred in not realizing that the outcome of satisfied punishment is not just forgiveness but redemption and restoration and that emergents have erred if they have tried to root kingdom living in theology outside of blood of Christ as a substitution for our sins.
I think Belcher is on to something in this section of the book, working to do fair justice to both sides of the aisle, but I am not sure there is a problem with most emergents having lost a belief in substitutionary atonement. But there has been such a strong reaction against the church on this issue as a litmus test of orthodoxy that a group of people who are naturally anti-establishment have fought back in an unnecessary battle.
The atonement is a multifaceted mystery of God’s love for it. I would contend that scripture strongly supports substitutionary atonement, but I would also contend that it supports other theories and aspects of the atonement that are vital to us embracing the fullness of the gospel and to live fruitfully in the kingdom of God. Substitutionary atonement is at the center of our understanding of Christ’s work on the cross but we can understand this part of the atonement and still miss out of the fullness of the gospel. This is an area in which emergents and traditionalists are wise to listen humbly to one another and seek a way forward together.
December 16, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I like the idea of the “third way” as you present it on this issue. I’m always a fan of an idea that is both/and in theology. So much Christian theology is rooted in ideas that are both/and. Certainly the atonement is more that penal substitutionary, but it is certainly not any less than that either.
My only critique/suggestion on your post is that many emergent thinkers might not have clearly written “against” the doctrine of penal substitution, but they certainly have led their followers to underemphasize the importance of penal-substitutionary atonement. I have always argued that this comes from the UNCLARITY in the writing of McLaren and others.
But I’m not sure your post gives the proper gravitas to the fact that there is a significant rethinking of the validity of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement going on the church right now. I have had more conversations from people wondering where I stand on the issue in the last two years that I did in my 7 years of college and seminary.
Although I haven’t read them enough to argue whether emergent leaders actually believe one thing or another. I can attest that many of their followers in Colorado have begun to seriously reconsider a fundamental doctrine of the faith solely due to their reading of books by the usual suspect in the world of the emerging church.
December 17, 2009 at 8:21 am
Dave,
I agree that there has been an under emphasis on this theory of atonement and it has seemed more reactionary than intentional in some ways. But what is really interesting is the reality, that you mentioned above, that there are a lot of evangelicals reexamining this theory of atonement not to disprove or abandon it but to add more meaning to it, different nuances and additional theories. That is exciting to me because it means we are really wrestling with the whole gospel and leaving reductionism behind.
That is the benefit the emerging church has had in my own life. It has given me a forum to give voice to the questions that I have discovered and different ideas to interact with. But, I think I am more of a third way person like yourself. I can’t embrace all that Emergent Village puts out or espouses, but want to keep in dialog with their ideas because there is important work to be done interacting with these ideas.
The best thinking I have encountered on atonement lately has been from McKnight and Miroslav Volf. Miroslav offered a theory on atonement called participatory substitutionary atonement that really got my head revved up.
December 17, 2009 at 11:47 am
“This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10)…Does this really represent false advertising? Is it “vile”? Does it represent “cosmic/divine child abuse”?
Some emergent folks, specifically McLaren, seem to think so:
Brian McLaren: This is, one of the huge problems is the traditional understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’ teaching then—I won’t say, the only, and I certainly won’t say even the primary—but a primary meaning of the cross is that the kingdom of God doesn’t come like the kingdoms of the this world, by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing, voluntary sacrifice, right? But in an ironic way, the doctrine of hell basically says, no, that that’s not really true. That in the end, God gets His way through coercion and violence and intimidation and domination, just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then. The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God.
Leif Hansen: Oh, Brian, that was just so beautifully said. I was tempted to get on my soap box there and you know—Because as you and I know there are so many illustrations and examples you could give that show why the traditional view of hell completely falls in the face of—it’s just antithetical to the cross. But the way you put it there; I love that. It’s false advertising. And here, Jesus is saying, turn the other cheek. Love your enemy. Forgive seven times seventy. Return violence with self-sacrificial love. But if we believe the traditional view of hell, it’s like, well, do that for a short amount of time. Because eventually, God’s gonna get’em.
Brian McLaren: Yeah. And I heard one well-known Christian leader, who—I won’t mention his name, just to protect his reputation. Cause some people would use this against him. But I heard him say it like this: The traditional understanding says that God asks of us something that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you—Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive…. And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else.
Brian McLaren: It used to be that Christian institutions and systems of dogma sustained the spiritual life of Christians. Increasingly spirituality itself is what sustains everything else Alan Jones is a pioneer in reimagining a Christian faith that emerges from authentic spirituality. His work stimulates and encourages me deeply.” (back flap of Reimagining Christianity)
Alan Jones: …implicit in the cross that Jesus’ sacrifice was to appease an angry God. Penal substitution was the name of this vile doctrine.” (Page 168, Reimaging Christianity)
Brian McLaren: “Steve Chalke’s new book could help save Jesus from Christianity. That’s a strange way of putting it, I know. Not that the real Jesus needs saving. But when one contrasts the vital portrait of Jesus painted by Steve with the tense caricature drawn so often by modern Christianity, one can’t help but feeling the ‘Jesus’ of modern Christianity is in trouble. The Jesus introduced by Steve in these pages sounds like someone who can truly save us from our trouble”
Steve Chalke: “… [penal substitutionary atonement] is a form of cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. (page 182, The Lost Message of Jesus)
Brian McLaren: ““I know that’s supposed to mean something to me, and I suppose I can see it, but it [Penal Substitutionary Atonement] raises so many questions. . . . For starters, if God wants to forgive us, why doesn’t he just do it? How does punishing an innocent person make things better? That just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation. It sounds like divine child abuse.” (Brian McLaren, The Story We Find Ourselves In)
Given the clear word of God in Isaiah 53:6-10; Romans 1:18; 3:22-5; 5:8-9; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13; Hebrews 9:11-28; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 4:10, McLaren’s view on atonement isn’t just a third way or just a view lacking in clarity…This is clearly another way.
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-19)
December 17, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Steve Chalke: “In my view, the real problem with penal substitution (a theory rooted in violence and retributive notions of justice) is its incompatibility, at least as currently taught and understood, with any authentically Christian understanding of the character of God or genuinely Christocentric worldview – given, for instance, Jesus own non-violent, ‘do not return evil for evil’, approach to life.
“Hence my comment, in The Lost Message of Jesus, about the tragedy of reducing God to a ‘cosmic child abuser’. Though the sheer bluntness of my imagery might shock some, in truth, it is only because it is a stark ‘unmasking’ of the violent, pre-Christian thinking behind such a theology.”
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_040723pen.shtml
D.A. Carson: “I have to say, as kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything, both McLaren and Chalke have largely abandoned the Gospel…Perhaps their rhetoric and enthusiasm have led them astray and they will prove willing to reconsider the published judgments on these matters and embrace biblical truth more holistically than they have been doing in their most recent works. But if not, I cannot see how their own words constitute anything less than a drift toward abandoning the Gospel itself…I would feel much less worried about the directions being taken by other Emerging Church leaders if these leaders would rise up and call McLaren and Chalke to account where they have clearly abandoned what the Bible actually says.”
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_print.php?cdate=2005-06-30
December 17, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I like the metaphor of the church as a litmus test for orthodoxy because a real litmus test doesn’t determine outcomes in a black or white, yes or no, in or out way, but rather how acidic or basic something is. Sure, some ideas of atonement are too acidic to be considered orthodox, but there is still a wide range of theology in the middle that would pass a true litmus text.
December 17, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Paul,
This is obviously a topic you have brought up several times on the blog. I struggle too with the way McLaren characterizes the atoning work of Christ, but I understand his struggle with it. It does seem paradoxical for a God whose sent his son to offer us salvation through grace needed violent punishment to do so. The question being asked by many people about atonement is whether or not the form of death Christ endured was necessary to satisfy God or whether it is the way he chosen to emphasize the nature of the sacrifice. Interesting questions regarding the atonement, but like I said, scripturally there is a clear substitutionary role for Christ on the cross.
I do think the “cosmic child abuse” quote has been handled in a way that doesn’t do it justice even if I don’t agree with it.
Thanks for the posts.
December 17, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I also have appreciated some theologians (like Volf and McKnight) helping to give us a more robust theology of atonement. And like you, I suppose I am grateful to the emergents for helping start the conversation. However, I am annoyed that they aren’t more clear.
As for the theologians who claim child-abuse, it is nonsense. Of course the Father sent the Son. But the Son chose to go.
I feel as though the child abuse nonsense is a ridiculous interpretation of the interaction of the Trinity. They aren’t two beings, they are two persons. Phil. 2 doesn’t have a single mention of the Father doing anything to the Son (except exalting Him), but it portrays Jesus lovingly choosing to take on the nature of a servant, and suffer death (even death on a cross!).
I’m not trying to oversimplify the complexity of the doctrine of the atonement, but the child abuse nonsense comes from a poor doctrine of the Trinity in my opinion.
December 18, 2009 at 8:00 am
The “child abuse” comments, from my understanding are more a commentary on theology talks about a necessity within God to punish his own son to fulfill some sort of blood-lust or need for vengeance within God himself. In this understanding of God which focuses on the need for death and blood to satisfy God some feel we have missed the point of the mercy and grace of Christ in choosing the cross. That being said, I don’t think that is much of an issue for most of us.
December 17, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I heard on the radio today that a little boy in MA (I think) drew a picture of a man on a cross with “x” on both eyes was sent home because his picture was violent and violated a school policy. They sent him to see the “professionals” to figure out what was wrong with him…and they couldn’t find a thing. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during the questioning.
Like a child…
I LOVE the Kingdom of God!
February 7, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Paul says, “It is NOT those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who OBEY the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13
Maybe you need to find out which law Paul is talking about since the law was changed AFTER Jesus’ crucifixion.